Interesting article. I wish he'd used a word like "uninformed" over ignorant, but I'm sure more people will click on it this way, so mission accomplished. I have absolutely no problem with having to pass a basic citizenship test for the right to vote. It will never, ever happen under any circumstances, but I'd be fine with it. One issue you'd have is even lower voter turnout if they told you that you had to take a test when you arrived at the polling stations. There would be some districts that would have canditates win 7-5 or something I'm sure. But interesting that they brought it up, and very good choice of author. Who can accuse the gay black dude of being racist/predjuice etc?

If I were to ask you to ingest an unknown medicine from someone who knew nothing about the medical field, you probably wouldn't do it. And I doubt many of us would feel comfortable as a shareholder in a company that asked people who knew nothing about business to hire its next CEO?

Yet we all know people who gleefully admit they know nothing about politics, don't have time to find out what the current issues are or even know how the government works, but go out and vote. Want to know why it seems Washington is run by a bunch of idiots? Blame this hiccup in our political system for starters. What's a solution? Weed out some of the ignorant by making people who want to vote first pass a test modeled on the one given to those who want to become citizens.

The Founding Fathers were not a bunch of average Joes with gripes about England; they were elite thinkers and philosophers. James Madison attended what is now Princeton. John Hancock went to Harvard. Thomas Jefferson enrolled at the College of William and Mary when he was 16. Today it seems the more education a candidate has, the harder he or she has to work to distance him or herself from it.

So how do we weed out ignorant voters without harking back to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow? I would start by making the U.S. Naturalization Test -- given to immigrants who want to become citizens -- part of the voter registration process.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Agree it is impossible, but IF somehow something like this would be worked out I think it would get a ton of the money out of politics and could be better for everyone. Think about it, who are 30 second ads using a few sound bytes that take something out of context really aimed at? The uninformed. That is where our political focus and money gets turned to, the people who have no interest or opinion other than what is force fed to them by political ads.

Call me Mr. Righty in here all you want, but I listen to progressive radio, I watch MSNBC almost exclusively, I understand the issues and view points of the issues that I stand on one side. Ads do not change my vote (and before JB starts on his "that's because you only vote Republican" I would fully support John Hickenlooper, governor of Denver in a run for president, and don't be surprised if he is a candidate in 2016, I voted for him in the governors race and really like his no nonsense, non political approach). So anyway, money focuses on the uninformed, and I don't mean that as if they just don't know, my bet is that it is much more likely they don't care.

So anyway, there are my two cents. Ain't never going to happen, and it is pretty much as crazy as it seems, but I think arguments could be made that it would lead to a better Washington.

motherscratcher wrote:I'd be fine with it too. But it is absolutely un-doable. There are polling places that have huge lines and waits as it is. Could you imagine if they had to have people take a test too?

Also, the potential for fraud/cheating is really high. It would be easy to get teh answers to any test before you even go, if you were so inclined. There would be no way to prevent that.

The idea is good. The execution is impossible.

Yeah it sounds like a great idea on the surface, one I have always ranted for myself, but when it comes down to it the issue becomes about the fine line of rights of the people. Does a 44 year old man that has been riddled with some sort of mental disabilities all his life (to the point of being borderline slow/retarded) yet holds a job and pays taxes not have a right to vote b/c he doesn't have the mental capacity to do well on such a test?

I'm not suggesting I have the answer to that question just sort of throwing it out there.

Now this same principle in regards to voting on specific issues like school levies might hold more water if you restricted voting on those issues to people who pay property tax (since that is where school levy money comes from "supposedly"). But again not sure it is a cut n dry approach either.

Politically IMO nobody even wants to care anymore and would rather try and live their daily lives so that decisions made by politicians effect them in the least significant way possible.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I like the little sidebar about how trashed the word elite has gotten inside the political process. The end game of a smart electorate could be some happy middle ground between democracy and aristocracy.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Orenthal wrote:I like the little sidebar about how trashed the word elite has gotten inside the political process. The end game of a smart electorate could be some happy middle ground between democracy and aristocracy.

I've always thought that. Never got why it seemed to be a bad thing to be smart.

There's a big "Do you think you're better than me?!" crowd that should die. They like Sarah Palin.

motherscratcher wrote:I'd be fine with it too. But it is absolutely un-doable. There are polling places that have huge lines and waits as it is. Could you imagine if they had to have people take a test too?

Also, the potential for fraud/cheating is really high. It would be easy to get teh answers to any test before you even go, if you were so inclined. There would be no way to prevent that.

The idea is good. The execution is impossible.

Yeah it sounds like a great idea on the surface, one I have always ranted for myself, but when it comes down to it the issue becomes about the fine line of rights of the people. Does a 44 year old man that has been riddled with some sort of mental disabilities all his life (to the point of being borderline slow/retarded) yet holds a job and pays taxes not have a right to vote b/c he doesn't have the mental capacity to do well on such a test?I'm not suggesting I have the answer to that question just sort of throwing it out there.

Now this same principle in regards to voting on specific issues like school levies might hold more water if you restricted voting on those issues to people who pay property tax (since that is where school levy money comes from "supposedly"). But again not sure it is a cut n dry approach either.

Politically IMO nobody even wants to care anymore and would rather try and live their daily lives so that decisions made by politicians effect them in the least significant way possible.

hermanfontenot wrote:I don't think people should have to pass a test to vote.

I do think people should have to be property owners, however. They're the ones "paying in," so to speak.

Problem with tests is they can be manipulated by those giving them out.

I've suggested that in the past as well. But then I remembered that I rent, so I wouldn't get to vote.

If you look at a red/blue map broken down by county after an election, it's really striking to see the disparity between cities/country. Even in blue states like Cali, NY, Illinois, the cities are blue and areas in the "country" are for the most part red. And in red states like Texas, Austin and some of the cities are blue.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

FUDU wrote:Could it be both, you are in fact crazy and I did in fact describe Peeker?

I would have thought him to be 42 though.

Herm, do you suggest the "only property owners vote" approach across the board or on specific issues in which they are the only ones "paying in"?

There I would agree. If a school levy issue comes up, and as a non-property owner not a single drop of my tax money supports those schools, I wouldn't have as much an issue being barred from voting. 'course being a renter and not supporting the schools, but having kids that go there is kinda vexing.

I'm thinking alot of state money goes to the schools, and that isn't property tax. Herm is living in the late 1700's folks.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Really. I thought you were a conservative, OJ. You want a smaller, more frugal government, right?

Me, I don't buy into the notion that the franchise is this sacred right that should be available to anyone with a pulse. I'd restrict it in a hot second and restricting it to property owners makes the most sense from a small-government standpoint.

Really. I thought you were a conservative, OJ. You want a smaller, more frugal government, right?

Me, I don't buy into the notion that the franchise is this sacred right that should be available to anyone with a pulse. I'd restrict it in a hot second and restricting it to property owners makes the most sense from a small-government standpoint.

And FWIW I'm not a property owner. My fiancee is, though.

So let's say Peeker, despite being slow, is a renter who holds a job & pays his taxes is he no longer part of "we the people"? I mean didn't a bunch of farmers a long long time ago fight a war over this exact thing...

Unless you're not being clear Herm I think you're at least being a bit elitist if not obtuse on your point, IMHO.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Really. I thought you were a conservative, OJ. You want a smaller, more frugal government, right?

Me, I don't buy into the notion that the franchise is this sacred right that should be available to anyone with a pulse. I'd restrict it in a hot second and restricting it to property owners makes the most sense from a small-government standpoint.

And FWIW I'm not a property owner. My fiancee is, though.

Yup conservative, I just can't see how you can rationalize property owners and only them paying in. I'd be more then happy with the test, and some proof that you either paid property tax or didn't get an Income Tax refund in excess of the amount you actually paid in tax. however measuring in tax, just seems more difficult then the test...

I just know as a guy looking for a house, and knowing the average property taxes (not Cleveland Heights, Shaker, Univerity and the othe insane tax communities), that I would be paying a greater amount in income tax alone. Just feel like I have some right to exercise some powwer there...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

The property rights thing is stupid, even on school levies. If someone rents in that city the property taxes affect them. They may not be paying them directly but they are indirectly paying them. If taxes go up, it is likely rent goes up.

pup wrote:What difference does it make if less people are allowed to vote, if they really only have two options and they both suck anyway?

It isn't the people putting people into office that is the problem. It is the fact that the people they have to put in office suck.

6 of one, half dozen of the other pup.

But by your logic above then why are some people voting if the candidate pool sucks, especially if those voters are uninformed or voters that do not give 2 shits? Honestly I will skip over a race on a ballot if I think all the options suck regardless of how informed of the candidates I may be, you're not obligated to vote on any one issue if at all, IMO people sometimes forget that.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

pup wrote:What difference does it make if less people are allowed to vote, if they really only have two options and they both suck anyway?

It isn't the people putting people into office that is the problem. It is the fact that the people they have to put in office suck.

6 of one, half dozen of the other pup.

But by your logic above then why are some people voting if the candidate pool sucks, especially if those voters are uninformed or voters that do not give 2 shits? Honestly I will skip over a race on a ballot if I think all the options suck regardless of how informed of the candidates I may be, you're not obligated to vote on any one issue if at all, IMO people sometimes forget that.

Not even close.

Let's say this. You are the smartest man on the planet. You know everything and can make the most informed decision on any question brought to you. And now you get to pick each elected official in every race.

You have a choice between 2. They both blow donkey balls. One leans this way. One leans that way. But both are by and large a waste of space and will make only decisions that benefit them or their party. You are so smart, party affiliation means nothing to you. Does it matter which one you pick?

Skipping over an option if you think they both suck? What is the point. One of them is winning.

pup wrote:What difference does it make if less people are allowed to vote, if they really only have two options and they both suck anyway?

It isn't the people putting people into office that is the problem. It is the fact that the people they have to put in office suck.

6 of one, half dozen of the other pup.

But by your logic above then why are some people voting if the candidate pool sucks, especially if those voters are uninformed or voters that do not give 2 shits? Honestly I will skip over a race on a ballot if I think all the options suck regardless of how informed of the candidates I may be, you're not obligated to vote on any one issue if at all, IMO people sometimes forget that.

Not even close.

Let's say this. You are the smartest man on the planet. You know everything and can make the most informed decision on any question brought to you. And now you get to pick each elected official in every race.

You have a choice between 2. They both blow donkey balls. One leans this way. One leans that way. But both are by and large a waste of space and will make only decisions that benefit them or their party. You are so smart, party affiliation means nothing to you. Does it matter which one you pick?

Skipping over an option if you think they both suck? What is the point. One of them is winning.

That is true. But with an informed electorate, at least you get the one that blows less donkey balls. Or smaller donkey balls.

Dumb electorate with 2 bad choices could get you the worst of the two (see Obama, Barack Hussein). Smart electorate with 2 bad choices at least gets you the lesser of two evils.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Pup I'm simply saying to your point (that it is the candidates to choose from instead of the voters) that it is a bit of each.

As to not voting at all if both suck being dumb b/c one is winning anway, I will never give my vote (which equals my support) to somebody whom I do not support just b/c of some crazy notion that I have to make a choice. No different than spending money on a car or TV, if I do not my choices why would I buy one.....just for the sake of buying one?, not a chance.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

I am clearly not a genius. I am smart enough however to avoid these threads where whimsical, ain't never gonna happen issues are addressed.

They've been here on these boards longer than I have being discussed by all kinds of learned men, each of whom is absolutely right while he shakes his head at the stupidity of everyone not sharing his world view, whether they be centrist, left or right.

But despite the workings of this veritable think-tank it costs me more for milk, gas and taxes than it did when I joined this place, my salary has in no way kept up with inflation and all of our sports teams still suck schlong.

Therefore I just avoid this little corner of the internet and I'm hoping one of you geniuses PMs me when you've fixed everything or killed off all those who are fucking it up.

motherscratcher wrote:Am I crazy or did you just perfectly descibe Peeker?

FUDU wrote:

motherscratcher wrote:I'd be fine with it too. But it is absolutely un-doable. There are polling places that have huge lines and waits as it is. Could you imagine if they had to have people take a test too?

Also, the potential for fraud/cheating is really high. It would be easy to get teh answers to any test before you even go, if you were so inclined. There would be no way to prevent that.

The idea is good. The execution is impossible.

Yeah it sounds like a great idea on the surface, one I have always ranted for myself, but when it comes down to it the issue becomes about the fine line of rights of the people. Does a 44 year old man that has been riddled with some sort of mental disabilities all his life (to the point of being borderline slow/retarded) yet holds a job and pays taxes not have a right to vote b/c he doesn't have the mental capacity to do well on such a test?I'm not suggesting I have the answer to that question just sort of throwing it out there.

Now this same principle in regards to voting on specific issues like school levies might hold more water if you restricted voting on those issues to people who pay property tax (since that is where school levy money comes from "supposedly"). But again not sure it is a cut n dry approach either.

Politically IMO nobody even wants to care anymore and would rather try and live their daily lives so that decisions made by politicians effect them in the least significant way possible.

Plus, a more informed electorate that results in the "better" candiate winning the elections will cause both parties to re-think their candidates and put forth people who are more qualifed. No longer will they just have to get over the lowest common denominator. We'll actually see candidates who are qualified to hold public office.

Think about it...all Repbs have to do is scream "I'm conservative! Cut taxes! I loved Reagan!" and they are considered the best for their party. Dems just plug their "commitment to women's right to choose, and I'm tough on terrorism!" and whatever it is Democrats are for these days and they become candidate du jour. Basically, whoever has a lot of money and can pretend to be conservative or liberal enough becomes the party's candidate in the election, because the voters are too stupid to look past the R or the D next to their name.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

gotribe31 wrote:Plus, a more informed electorate that results in the "better" candiate winning the elections will cause both parties to re-think their candidates and put forth people who are more qualifed. No longer will they just have to get over the lowest common denominator. We'll actually see candidates who are qualified to hold public office.

Think about it...all Repbs have to do is scream "I'm conservative! Cut taxes! I loved Reagan!" and they are considered the best for their party. Dems just plug their "commitment to women's right to choose, and I'm tough on terrorism!" and whatever it is Democrats are for these days and they become candidate du jour. Basically, whoever has a lot of money and can pretend to be conservative or liberal enough becomes the party's candidate in the election, because the voters are too stupid to look past the R or the D next to their name.

If you think picking R or D is limited to the stupid, you are a donut short of a dozen.

We don't pick the candidates. The candidates pick us. The whole lansscape of poitics would have to change to make anything different/better.

Succeed as a Mayor, get a shot HoR.Succeed in the House, get a shot at Senate.Succeed in Senate, get a shot at Governor.Succeed as Governor, get a shot at POTUS.(obviously more that this^^, but for the snapshot view)

Fail at any level, go back to private sector.

A car dealership owner with no political background, but an agenda? Fuck that.

Almost every job in this country requires experience. Almost every class you take requires prerequisites. You want to run for office? Fill out a form, get some signatures and pay a large sum of cash. And we wonder why our best options for Governor are Tweedledee and Tweedledum?

gotribe31 wrote:Plus, a more informed electorate that results in the "better" candiate winning the elections will cause both parties to re-think their candidates and put forth people who are more qualifed. No longer will they just have to get over the lowest common denominator. We'll actually see candidates who are qualified to hold public office.

Think about it...all Repbs have to do is scream "I'm conservative! Cut taxes! I loved Reagan!" and they are considered the best for their party. Dems just plug their "commitment to women's right to choose, and I'm tough on terrorism!" and whatever it is Democrats are for these days and they become candidate du jour. Basically, whoever has a lot of money and can pretend to be conservative or liberal enough becomes the party's candidate in the election, because the voters are too stupid to look past the R or the D next to their name.

If you think picking R or D is limited to the stupid, you are a donut short of a dozen.

We don't pick the candidates. The candidates pick us. The whole lansscape of poitics would have to change to make anything different/better.

Succeed as a Mayor, get a shot HoR.Succeed in the House, get a shot at Senate.Succeed in Senate, get a shot at Governor.Succeed as Governor, get a shot at POTUS.(obviously more that this^^, but for the snapshot view)

Fail at any level, go back to private sector.

A car dealership owner with no political background, but an agenda? Fuck that.

Almost every job in this country requires experience. Almost every class you take requires prerequisites. You want to run for office? Fill out a form, get some signatures and pay a large sum of cash. And we wonder why our best options for Governor are Tweedledee and Tweedledum?

I completely agree. Especially about the "the whole landscape of politics would have to change to make anything better." And again, I don't think that this will ever happen, but having to pass a citizenship or other qualifing test to vote would change the whole landscape of politics.

I'm as frustrated and fed up with the system as you are. I think we need to put term limits on HoR and Senate seats, for starters. Get back to the idea of citizen legislators who come to Washington for a few years, do their duty for their country, and then go home and go back to the farm/factory/law firm/doctors office or whatever. The fact that you can make a career as a politician is part of the problem, in my opinion.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

My only remaining point is you can have an ignorant voter not fuck things up if his 2 options are both good. You can have a brilliant voter fuck things up if his 2 options are Obama or McCain.

In a vast majority of cases today, it is bad options over bad choices.

Absolutely. Not saying I am brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, but I know I can pass a citizenship test. I didn't vote in 2010, because I thought both options were worthless. My pie in the sky pipedream is that with a more informed electorate, there would be more quality canditates. Maybe that's just not possible, who knows.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

If there's a better example of pandering to ignorant voters than Obama's "speech" on his "budget" yesterday, I don't remember it. What a joke. Evaluating cuts on a 12-year plan? No one does that. Starting all of the cuts after November 2012? How convinent. More tax increases, more cuts in defense when he's advocating using the military like his own personal toy all around the globe...what a disaster of a human being this guy is. But all the sheep will see is "4 trillion in cuts!" and think that he's serious about reducing deficit spending.

He's a used car salesman who will tell you anything you want to get you to drive off the lot in his POS car that will break down and probably kill you 10 miles into your ride. But he's got his, so he doesn't give a damn.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves-----Abe Lincoln

Let me tell you, if any of you douchebag empty headed stuffed suit nanny politicians tries to fuck with my bacon, I’m going after you like a crazed chimpanzee on bath salts. -----Lars

Great to see so many people on here agree with the premise of earning your right to vote by being informed.

This is all a fantasy of course, but while we're at it, in my utopia, I would grant everyone the right to vote, but before you filled out the ballot you would have a basic and simple quiz on the candidates/issues. Your score would then determine the "weight" of your vote. A person who scored 9/10 would have a vote that counted 3 times as much as a person who watched a lot of commercials and now scored 3/10.

'sayin'. There was a day this was law. It was corrupted and perverted and don't think for a second it wouldn't be again or you don't pay nay attention to the redistricting processes and whose ox gets gored when one side is in power.

You do realize that the ones responsible for creating these knowledge/literacy tests would be..... the government.